2012 WL 5481962
E.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Defendant Decoteau was involuntarily medicated to restore competency, initially authorized for four months by Decoteau I (Apr. 30, 2012) with an expiration of Sept. 15, 2012.
- August 28, 2012 report indicated Risperdal oral therapy began May 16, 2012; May 23, 2012 injection of Risperdal Consta followed, escalated to 50 mg by Aug. 2, 2012; by Aug. 2012 progress deemed not yet sufficient but with substantial probability of restoration with continued treatment.
- September 7, 2012 hearing reviewed continued treatment; Dr. Berger testified a second anti-psychotic could restore competency even after a first failure, with effects expected within two to six months.
- Government sought extension beyond four months; Decoteau argued existing record did not support further forcible medication and urged hearings; defense challenged the probability assessments.
- Court held September 11, 2012 teleconference to supplement the record; the government proposed a second course of medication (Haldol or similar) if necessary, with a longer cumulative treatment period.
- Court granted renewed authorization for involuntary medication for four months, to be followed by potential extension upon court approval, and ordered monthly progress reports during treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether renewed involuntary medication satisfies Sell factors | Decoteau contends no substantial likelihood of restoration exists. | Decoteau argues the record fails to show substantial likelihood for a second course. | Yes; government proved substantial likelihood to restore competency. |
| What standard governs 'substantially likely' restoration in this context | Decoteau emphasizes lack of numeric probability and uncertain efficacy. | Decoteau points to lack of precise probability. | Court uses Gomes framework; burden met with expert testimony showing substantial probability of success. |
| Appropriate duration of the extension for renewed treatment | Government argues four-month period sufficient; may extend as needed. | Four months is excessive or inadequate; seeks minimal or no extension. | Four-month extension authorized, with potential for further extension if warranted. |
| Reliance on Herbel and Cochrane studies to support prognosis | Studies show high success rates for restoration with antipsychotics. | Studies do not address second drug efficacy after first failure; data is indirect. | Studies used as guideposts; expert testimony on substantial likelihood adequate absent direct data. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gomes, 387 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2004) (substantial likelihood standard for involuntary medication as to restore competency)
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (S. Ct. 2003) (framework for compelled treatment in competency restoration)
- United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387 (2d Cir. 2008) (Sell factors require medical appropriateness and feasibility)